Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'DIRECTV General Discussion' started by justinboo, Jan 10, 2019.
I'm sure, you mean 40 Mbps
Maybe it’s my eyes then. I was talking about same movie, blu-Ray to blu-Ray, 1080p vs 4k as viewed using my Optoma 4k laser projector on a 102” screen - or - same scenario on my LG OLED65B7A. To my eyes the difference between the good 1080p and plain 4k is ...meh. On the other hand, same scenarios, the difference between good 1080p and 4k HDR/DV is clearly apparent. Again, maybe it’s just my eyes...
Well dreadlk is talking about "all the color aspects and shading ... [is] immediately apparent", so he's comparing 1080p non-HDR to 4K HDR, which agrees with your assessment.
Sounds like he's equating "low bit rate" and "low color depth" which isn't the case. You can have lower bit rate 4K HDR and higher bit rate 4K non-HDR. Back when HD first came out using the full 19.2 Mbps of an ATSC signal it was amazing. Better than what we get today, so the lower bar of today's HD quality is easy for high quality 4K to beat. If 4K TV gains traction, we'll start seeing it compressed more and not look as good as it does today (which will have people pining for 8K, I suppose)
Yep ... one day we will have 16K compressed to the point where it looks worse than SD.
So still no 4K. I guess he either did something wrong or didn’t hook the C61K to the Hr54 correctly or the equipment is faulty. I’m going to work on it tomorrow or Friday with Dtv. Hopefully we will get it straight.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I don't see how much more traction 4K TV's can gain. Close to 100% of new TV's destined for the main viewing room already is 4K.
As discussed on previous threads - is this because people want a 4K picture or because the manufactures find it cheaper to produce 4K sets than larger pixel HD sets? The larger the set the more likely they are saving money by using smaller pixels and creating 4K (and eventually mass market 8K and 16K) sets. On smaller sets manufacturers face the challenge of making tiny pixels (with a limited benefit to the viewer). Somewhere in the middle is where the economic decision could go either way - engage the marketing department to categorically state that 4K is better than HD (even when being fed HD or less signals) and the decision can be made based on lower costs and higher prices.
As much as I would like to believe that the TV manufactures have developed this burning desire to provide us with better picture quality the truth is the push with 4K TV's is really just a marketing design. Ya just gotta move up to a 4K TV or miss out on a glorious new viewing experience. It's marketing 101. Give them a reason, real or imagined, to buy a new TV. The auto industry has mastered this approach. Will the average buyer of a 4K 55" to 85" TV see much of a PQ increase while watching NCIS or Blue Bloods or anything else broadcast in 720P or 1080i? Most won't. Some will. However, the TV manufacture makes more money because their marketing guru's convinced us to spring for a new TV that doesn't cost them anymore to produce than the 2K TV you're replacing. It's a strange strange world we live Master Jack.
I am afraid that I must totally disagree with your post.
My 4k TV was only $749 for a 4k Samsung 2 years ago. It is the sharpest picture that I have ever had. None came close to it. It is a Smart TV and none of the others were. It gets on You Tube, etc. wirelessly that none of the others did.
No Comparison. The upscaling is fantastic.
I agree. While I am sure the Black Friday 299 for a 75 inch 4K tv aren’t a huge improvement over most. My LG OLED has a marked improvement watching Blue Bloods compared to my 8 year old sharp
I agree. Source material, Director's intent, film stock, lighting techniques, bit rate, ect. all have a impact on how the finished product is going to look.
It's all about the TV's processing chip. The better the processor the better the TV's performance. Last month I replaced my Sony XBR-55X900C 4K Ultra HDTV (their 2015 flagship model) with a Sony XBR-55X900F 4K Ultra HDTV (2018 model). Both TV's are high end and professionally calibrated. The XBR-55X900C has the 4K X1 Processor and the XBR-55X900F has the 4K HDR Processor X1 Extreme (40% more processing power). Very noticeable difference between the two TV's performance.
Two things to consider here. Any new TV is going to have better PQ than an 8 year old TV. Now if you add that the new TV is OLED? No 8 year old TV will be on the same planet as a new OLED PQ wise.
If you were looking at 2017 TV's in the size range I referred to and none of the others TV's were Smart TV's I can't imagine what TV's you were comparing your Samsung to. I just bought a 55" Smart 4K Vizio for $359. 4K is now just a marketing tool. As it was originally intended.
Yes the processing ability of newer TVs is vastly increased over what they were capable of at the beginning of the decade. To the point that today there is little improvement to be had from an AVR, whereas it could make a big difference in the past.
I just moved a 55" Samsung MU9000 to my utility room. I had a 42" 1080p Panasonic plasma in that room and didn't disconnect it. That plasma had the best PQ of any of the 12 (that's a guess, not sure how many I bought) that I have had (all Panny plasmas). For the second time I had the opportunity to compare a good 1080p set to a good 4K set side by side. I saw the same thing I saw a few years ago. The 4K set is much better and it's very obvious. No matter the content. 4K might be a marketing tool but it's better than anything I've ever had as far as PQ goes. That Panny plasma was not a smart TV, not that I think that has anything to do with PQ. I just got rid of a 60" plasma, that was newer but didn't have the PQ the 42" set had. When I bought each plasma I compared PQ in the stores as well as I could. I always saw a better picture on every plasma than I saw on any LCD set on display in my price range (not more than 2 grand).
I just bought a Samsung NU8000 a couple months ago. Got it for a great price, less than $1,000 (well, 3 dollars less). It has PQ similar to the other three 4K sets we have. Worth every penny. I think.
I think "supply and demand" lowered the prices. Once folks got it in their heads this wasn't "fake news" they wanted a better picture and the only choices they had were 4K sets. That's why we only see large 4K sets selling now for the most part...there is a massive demand for them.
I don't agree. There's a massive demand for bigger TVs. People always want something bigger than what they have, and there aren't any big TVs now that aren't 4K. So a lot of 4K TVs get sold because that's your only choice. If they still sold HDTVs for $100 less, I'll bet a lot of people would be choosing them.
The average person doesn't even know what "4K" is, let alone care about it. 3D TVs sold like hotcakes for a while, because for a time if you bought a higher end TV the odds were good it included 3D. People weren't buying because they wanted 3D, it just happened to be a feature included.
There is a massive demand because they are outstanding. Because they are so good you can sit closer to them and not hurt your eyes or see the individual lines of pixels on the panel.
3 years ago a couple of people on here were saying the 4k "is nothing more than a fad". They were wrong.
The technology for making the panels and technology for the processors for upscaling are outstanding.
The only thing that is going to change is the 8k TVs that some are already gearing up to manufacture ( I posted a link earlier ).
I read that as the
TV screen gets larger and larger it is easier to make the 4k and 8k. This is because the pixels get larger and they are more easily manufactured and installed. That is also the reason today that you do not see small TVs that are 4k.
Arriving late to this thread, my aged (I’m in my 70s) eyes discern a dramatic difference between HD and 4k/4kHDR offerings. In my dotage I’m fortunate to have an LG OLED TV, Roku Ultra and 5k/HDR computer monitor (with gigabit speed and a 2080 Ti video card). In this regard, my assessment of 4k versus HD is reminiscent of my reaction to HD when it first became available.
I wish channel 104 provided fewer repeats, hockey again proved available on 106 and the repeated need to check the 4k box in settings/display/resolution didn’t present itself, but still find DirecTV’s 4k programming very enjoyable. The same holds for the 4k (some with HDR) tiers of Netflix, Amazon Prime, Curiosity Stream and Smithsonian Channel augmented by non-4k services such as Acorn, Britbox, ESPN+, MHz Choice and NBC Sports Gold/Philly Pass. Indeed, the substantial range of viewing options almost is overwhelming.
When I was a child, I loved when my father visited other cities and brought back their newspapers. Now I subscribe to seven US and foreign papers behind paywalls (as well as The Athletic) and access many others. I am glad to have lived long enough to encounter such a broad constellation of choices (especially as a retiree possessing much free time), with 4k at their core. Don’t think I’ll be around to see widespread adoption of 8k – should that indeed occur – but would love if that were the case. Bottom line: to me a 4k upgrade definitely is worth it, even with a 55” TV screen.